Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

buzzfeed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

281–290 of 373 posts

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#281

Post by tptacek »

rodgerd wrote: post #261
tptacek wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN has always been moderated at the post level, from the beginnings of the site. If it wasn't, the site would be flooded with fluffy recaps of whatever current event story was making people angriest right now, and there would be no place for stories about Linux on solderless breadboards and Latex-like math programming languages; instead, we'd get HuffPo, Buzzfeed, Pando, and ValleyWag's take on whatever the controver…

It's a valid point, but there are plenty of fluffy stories about HN's favourite companies (which have included Uber in the past); how many stories about Tesla (the company), Uber, and the like are about their technology , and how many are breathless enthusiasm? It does look a little rank when there's been heaps of "rah-rah Uber, disrupt, disrupt, disrupt" type articles in the past to have negative ones pruned.

If it looks that way, you should question your assumptions, because that's not what's happening. What's instead happening is that a controversy-du-jour is spawning lots of little stories, and the mods are working to make sure they don't co-opt the front page, which (because it is a linear list of individual links) is especially vulnerable to controversies-du-jour.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#282

Post by wpietri »

throwaway09F911 wrote: post #140
Asparagirl wrote: post #3

Attempting to blackmail the press if they challenge your company's PR? Specifically targeting parents' worst fears by threatening to reveal details of the location of their children? Openly rifling through the location metadata of another female journalist, a customer of theirs, without her consent? Implicitly saying they'll leak customer data of Uber customers who are journalists, the kind of thing that can potentia…

I'm writing this as a throwaway because this feels like mob and pitchforks. I'm a regular here and have no ties to Uber except using it. This whole story feels like they took a frustrated guy venting at dinner and making it into a conspiracy. Meanwhile, Sarah Lacey comments publicly and insultingly on people's political positions, emotions, and dating life. What the man said was very stupid. But it feels a lot like,…

In front of journalists, the man talked in detail about a plan to destroy journalists giving negative coverage. As far as I know, you're the only person calling it "a conspiracy". But plenty of people are taking that as a way of threatening journalists.

The "blowing off steam" theory doesn't strike me as plausible. If it had happened at his local alley while talking with his bowling team, sure, maybe. But the CEO and and SVP of a $16 bn company don't sit down with a bunch of journalists by accident. Either the guy was intending to intimidate journalists (and Lacy in specific) or he is so dangerously clueless that a) he should not be a senior executive of anything bigger than a lemonade stand, and b) it would be hard to explain how he made it this far.

A journalist friend said that powerful people threatening journalists is routine, and that this sort of thing has a chilling effect on coverage. When smart people "accidentally" do something very self-serving, a reasonable working hypothesis is that they actually knew what they were doing.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#283

Post by smackfu »

Panino wrote: post #64

When Godaddy came out in support of SOPA, after a string of other obviously bad actions, I thought for sure it would harm their business. It didn't. Unfortunately I don't think this Uber story will be different. Most people don't take a stand on anything (unless it involves consuming even more fast food, like a Chick-fil-a "reverse boycott").

Lyft and Uber seem pretty interchangeable, so having a reason to choose one over the other is not good for them.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#284

Post by dreamweapon »

zo1 wrote: post #182
smrtinsert wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The threat against the children was vile and terrifying. The investors of Uber should be ashamed of themselves. Needless to say, a lot of Uber users are parents, and this news will definitely spread.

The language you use makes it seem like this guy threatened to physically hurt people's children. That's quite manipulative , especially your choice of emotional words such as "vile" and "terrifying".

His language was indeed a bit hyperbolic. But this doesn't lessen the inherent creepiness -- and sure, let us also say vileness -- of what the Uber executive said in that meeting.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#285

Post by wpietri »

tedks wrote: post #131

I hope all the people commenting with pitchforks in hand have also never said (or have been alleged to have said) anything at a private dinner between friends that could be construed in any way to be similar to these remarks.

This was not a private dinner between friends.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#286

Post by philwelch »

acdha wrote: post #270
philwelch wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) She was writing hit pieces on Uber before this incident and clearly has an axe to grind regarding that company. Of course she's going to milk this incident for all she can and react as uncharitably as possible. That's PandoDaily's business model. 2) The thing about bad PR is that it doesn't have to be true. Regardless, I'm not even talking about the basic facts reported by Buzzfeed. I'm talking about Sarah's inter…

1. "Hit piece" is a loaded term. So far there's no reason to warrant it just because they wish she was channeling their PR department. 2. Again, we have no reason to think this isn't true - they're in damage control mode trying to say it wasn't serious but nobody is claiming that it wasn't a real quote. Much as you seem to be personally invested in attacking her credibility, it's simply not possible to seriously clai…

I think Sarah's sensationalizing it because sensationalizing things is her business. That's all.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#287

Post by philwelch »

wpietri wrote: post #278
philwelch wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So all you have to do is accuse people of sexism, and anything they do in reaction to that is automatically sexist? Does that make Arthur Miller a communist?

That is not what I said. If you're really having trouble interpreting what I wrote, perhaps you could ask less loaded question, and one more specifically related to what you're replying to.

That is exactly what you said! You said that when a woman journalist accuses you of sexism, it's already a "gendered incident" (even if you didn't do anything to deserve the original accusation!) and getting angry at her can be "reasonably" interpreted as a "continuing pattern of misogynistic behavior". The logical consequence of that is that any woman journalist can indict someone for misogyny and it's automatically true, in your eyes, if they try to defend themselves.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#288

Post by wpietri »

Edmontonian wrote: post #191

The most recent Pulitzer Prize winner for journalism (Glenn Greenwald) says journalism is an "adversarial" process. However, adversarial is by nature a two way street. Journalists who go digging into the lives of people and businesses need to be prepared for adversarial response. If I'm a business owner that's being investigated by a journalist, I want to find out the who, what, where, when and why. I am entitled to…

Nope.

Journalism is a constitutionally protected activity that is a cornerstone of democracy. Without an informed public, democracy cannot work. Attempting to subvert that by threatening journalists is flat out wrong.

If you are a business owner, sure, you can legally investigate journalists. But that is very different than threatening to leak material about them to influence press coverage.

Also, your "turnabout is fair play" logic is ridiculous. Greenwald got the secrets of the NSA, but that does not mean that the NSA is entitled to steal Greenwald's secrets.

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#289

Post by drivingmenuts »

downandout wrote: post #269
scarmig wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the plus side, even Kalanick has agreed that the spying and stalking suggestion is terrible and reprehensible, although there's no suggestion that a firing is imminent.

Also on the plus side, it was an off-the-cuff remark that only people who like getting upset over nonsense got upset about. If firing were imminent, it would be an insult to all reasonable human beings who know that sometimes you vent at parties. If you want to dislike Uber, dislike them over their anti-competitive practices, not over this.

> it was an off-the-cuff remark

There's no such thing without some form of prior agreement that it's off the record.

If you're hanging out with family, it's probably off-the-record, even if they're reporters. If you're hanging out with friends, it's likely but not guaranteed off-the-record, even if they're reporters.

If you're in front of reporters that don't have specified ground-rules, it's on the record. It has been established time and again that if it's not specified off the record, then it's on the record.

Michael called the subject reporter and asked for an off-the-record conversation, which she refused to grant, and he hung up. Clearly he knows the difference.

He wrote an apologetic email later, knowing full well we're now in a time where an ostensibly private email can be made public by the recipient and did not ask for any special status.

It's not like he doesn't know the difference between on-the-record and off-the-record.

So, why does he get a pass on an unbelievably stupid statement?

Re: Uber Executive Suggests Digging Up Dirt on Journalists

#290

Post by philwelch »

metaphorm wrote: post #237
tmarthal wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is almost akin to a celebrity getting upset and punching a paparazzi. It happens due to stupidity, human emotion and rash behavior. Is it right? No, but it does shed light on some issues. Reporters and journalists can and do scrutinize people. However, what has become of journalism is that for sites like Pando Daily/Tech Crunch/? etc. they are gossip magazines about Silicon Valley business people and software de…

these aren't blurry lines. if Emil Michael feels like a journalist stepped over a line in reporting then he should have filed a civil suit. that's not what he suggested. he suggested utilizing millions of dollars of the resources of a billion dollar company to engage a campaign of systematic intimidation and harassment against journalists he didn't like.

Because this is what journalists do.
Post reply on HN